People and Place: Ideas That Connect UsEcological and Biophysical Econ and many other topical matters. From their About page: "Part weblog, part web-based journal, People and Place hosts an inquiry on ideas that connect us."

Comment Policy

Comments

Comments are open and welcome as long as they are not offensive or hateful. Also this site is commercial free so any comments that are offensive or promotional will be removed. Good questions are always welcome!

Systems Science

December 21, 2017

The occasion of the Winter Solstice has me thinking about a major fundamental aspect of all system processes. They all involve cycles (which include quasi-cycles or quasiperiodicity, hypercycles, and other variations on the theme of cyclic or almost cyclic behavior). In nature as well as human-designed systems cycling between multiple states is the rule without exceptions. Mountains are built up only to be weathered away into sand that then turns eventually into sedimentary rock in preparation for the next round of mountain building. Living organisms are propagated, develop, reproduce, go into senescence and die. Economies emerge, grow, develop, run out of adequate resources, and collapse. Out of the left-overs of prior societies, new ones emerge, generally because of newer technologies that allow extraction of previously unexploited resources. And the cycle starts over. Most cyclic behaviors in nature are non-periodic, not like a sinusoidal. But the systems pass through states that resemble one another again and again. Another kind of cycle that is often found in systems where energy is gradually declining is the spiral. Each time around the cycle the states come closer and closer to maximum entropy.

Some are tempted to think that the current world civilization will not run out of resources because the emergence of new technologies has seemingly always allowed a new spurt of economic growth and development. But writers like Robert J. Gordon (The Rise and Fall of American Growth: The U.S. Standard of Living since the Civil War (The Princeton Economic History of the Western World)), and James Howard Kunstler (The Long Emergency), have identified trends in the invention and development of new technologies suggesting that the economic impacts of the most modern ones are relatively small. Gordon analyzed the phenomenal growth in American productivity and growth of the national wealth and income during the period post-WWII through the 1980s (his total analysis went from the end of the Civil War to the present) and found a strong argument that that growth was anomalous in the long-run, and largely due to the introduction, starting in pre-WWI years, of the most impactful technologies, i.e. communications, air transport, trains, etc. Even the Internet does not have as strong an influence on growth as did these 'seminal' technologies. Similarly, and deeply connected the advent of the age of oil was responsible for tremendous growth once the infrastructure for massive extraction and refining was in place, stimulated mainly by the needs of fuels for WWII. Now that the cost of extraction and refining are climbing relative to the energy supplied to society, the net access to high-power energy is declining at an accelerating pace. That trend does not bode well for our civilization. [Those still insisting that alternative energy sources will permit continuing business as usual should really try to wake up from your dream. A society that might be powered by alternatives would have to necessarily be a much-reduced version of today in the developed world.

The current news about how the economy (of the US anyway) is improving and growing at an increasingly "healthy" pace is based on faulty analysis and deeply flawed theory. It is propelled into the discourse by wishful thinking more than carefully reasoned arguments based on facts and sound theory. The situation is not dissimilar to conditions in 1929.

But just on the principle of cycling in systems dynamics we can confidently predict that the current world economy will collapse. We don't know when precisely, though some trends are starting to emerge that imply it won't be long. This is the way the Universe works. Whether or not a new, very different kind of society will emerge from the ashes is impossible to predict except to suggest that it is a reasonable expectation. This is the way evolution seems to work. The collapse of global civilization may provide a powerful selection pressure on survivors that favor the wise over the foolish (which I suspect represent the vast majority of the population at present). I suspect (and hope) that severe climate change will require extreme wisdom in order to survive and procreate. For better or worse, the core theme of human evolution has been based on cooperation (group selection) and that seems like the path that will most likely succeed for future generations.

Of course, systems do go extinct. Stars may explode sending their elemental components into space for recycling. Planets can enter runaway feedbacks that lead to unlivable conditions (like Venus, perhaps). Dinosaurs (except Aves) no longer roam the planet. Runaway positive feedback in cycles lead to total disruption of the system. In a few of these cases the systems simply disintegrate into simple component parts that might get recycled in new systems (a meta-cycle). In others the parts are just randomly distributed through maximizing entropy. What will the fate of humanity and societies be is anybody's guess. I'd like to believe there is a future for our distant future progeny. But who knows?

The current political situation in the US is a portend of what is to come. But it is also a measure of what processes are playing out. It gives us insight into what happens when a system runs out of energy and internal regulation. Our political process is so completely and unrecoverably broken that it is hard to imagine anything other than some kind of revolution (possibly preceded by another civil war) tearing down the last remnants of a government. None of the branches of government in the US are functional anymore, except of course to serve the interests of the super-rich.

For the Northern Hemisphere the days are going to start getting longer. We will have more light by which to witness the continuing degradation of societies. I don't think the drive toward Spring will bring renewal of the social system. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if this Spring Equinox shows us the cycle of despair.

September 22, 2017

Will our civilization survive and thrive or collapse and descend into chaos? That is the essence of a number of e-mails I have gotten over the last few months. The number seems to have picked up with the election of Donald Trump. I wonder why? The letters and e-mails I used to get were more along the lines of "how do we save our society?" to "how can our society survive?" to "can any kind of society and civilization survive?" Today the dominant question seems to be: "when will society collapse and how bad will it be?"

There has been a definite trend in the mood of these questions which I attribute to the continuing pile up of evidence that none of our institutions are really working anymore, a subject I have observed in the past. So it seems that more people are coming to the conclusion that something is definitely wrong with our social system if not our collective minds. For much of the history of this blog I've commented extensively on both.

My own opinion (for what it is worth - about as much as you are paying to read this) is that our whole social system (globally) is on the brink of a major and dramatic transition. The argument I make is based on systems theory, but then so have been all of my previous observations and I suspect long-time readers are apt to realize I've got a pretty good track record when it comes to pointing out large-scale trends (in the downward direction).

The transition of which I speak is one in the sense of the major transitions in evolutionary history, from pre-organic chemistry to life, from prokaryotes to eukaryotes, from single cells to multicellular organisms, etc. Human society is itself the result of such a major transition, the evolution of hyper-sociality in our genus that has led to tribes, towns, cities, and so on.

Transitions of this kind are not radical, sudden revolutions so much as gradual reorganizations of existing systems that makes a collective of previously independent systems more fit as a collective, cooperating structure. That is not to say the transition might not be triggered or pushed ahead by the event of some catastrophe. The transition from reptile dominance to mammalian and bird dominance in the megafauna was hastened along (in geological time scales) by the extinction event that wiped out the non-bird dinosaurs. As I have describe several times in these pages, I suspect that a general collapse of our current neoliberal capitalistic system (or variations on capitalism as we find, for example, in China), which I think will result in a collapse of most institutions will bring civilization to its knees or lower. It is likely to result in massive decline in the populations around the world (which is a euphemistic way to say massive dying).

But the collapse of this society is not as bad a thing as it might seem, except, of course, to those of us who end up being part of the population collapse. I know this is cold, but the fact is that the way this society works is exactly what is causing the problems.

The collapse of the economic system may actually be brought about by forces associated with climate change (coupled with decline in free energy resources). It isn't hard to imagine such a scenario. We may even be witnessing the beginning stages with the horrendous costs in lives and property due to this hurricane season (and just so far). Climate change, in the form of major disasters, will be extremely costly. It will be even more costly when we finally get that we have to adapt - as in moving Miami hundreds of miles inland and north. Where will the resources come from to accomplish this? With net free energy resources already on the decline how will we accomplish the work needed?

While not dismissing the possibility completely, I don't think humanity will disappear completely. I don't even think some kind of social structure will disappear. It will just be an extremely diminished version of what we see today. But therein lies the opportunity.

Complex adaptive and evolvable systems (CAES) collapse when their governance infrastructures fails to regulate their behavior. Humanity's governance system is wide of the mark when it comes to meeting the criteria of sustainability. Our governments are incompetent in part because they are very poorly designed to manage the complexity of the modern world. But also they are incompetent because the individual decision agents making them up are themselves incompetent. They are simply not sufficiently sapient. Exhibit A: Senator James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma). What a complete idiot. Exhibit B: Representative Lamar Smith (R-Texas), head of the House Science Committee!!!! These guys and most of the Congress are totally out of touch with reality. How did they get to be elected - Oh wait, I forgot the President too.

There are lots of examples of CAESs that have managed to evolve relatively competent governance subsystems. Cells do it. Brains do it. It isn't impossible. But it is hard and as a result of long-term evolution it has to be tested repeatedly in the world stage of selection. There are some examples of corporate or non-profit organizations that have been long-lived because they take their governance seriously and the top management are not out to rob the place blind and make an escape.

The design of government is the result of a long evolutionary process that has been going on since the Stone Age. We've tried just about every kind of configuration and function. Most have reflected a social hierarchical structure, but in the absence of real sapience these hierarchies have devolved to power relations rather than service relations. A wise structure is based on the executives and supervisors taking the position that they work for those who do the actual work. They are supposed to provide them with the vision and tools, not boss them around. Ordinary human beings just don't get this.

Modern democracies are built around the neoliberal idea of individual autonomy (a secular version of "free will"). In the west this means blatant individualism, in the extreme, libertarian sentiments - another failing of low sapience. Hyper-sociality, a characteristic of high sapience, is based on cooperation, altruism, selflessness, and a sense of belonging to something bigger and more important than the individual. Democracy among low-sapients cannot work. It doesn't work. Just look at the evidence in front of your eyes. The average human being today is out for "numero uno". How much of this is because there are simply too many of us and we all feel we are in competition with each other? I offer arguments that suggest that while population density tends to bring out the worst in us, the fact is that the worst is IN US.

What about the transition? I have argued several times that high sapient people (and there are a few in this world despite the madding crowds) will tend to be more adaptive to changing conditions such as climate change and a collapsing society. They will also have the capacity to find one another and form social units that can actually work. They are the hope of the genus. They form the basis for an incipient new species of Homo that stands a chance to survive the collapse and construct a better governance subsystem.

The collapse of human social systems will mirror the collapse of the reptilian dominance 65 million years ago. Something positive will emerge from it.

So, as we go into the darkness of winter we take heart in knowing that there will be a turning point in the solstice and an emergence into the light of spring. We humans can make a transition to a better social organization. It will be a necessity. We now know that the system that has evolved thus far can be improved greatly.

August 21, 2017

I'm sitting in Newberg,OR at my sister-in-law's house, just ten miles from the edge of totality. It is nearly 8:30 am and as soon as breakfast is over we will, perhaps, drive a little further south so as to catch the "full" effect. That effect, of course, is a darkening of this part of the Earth for several minutes.

The path of the eclipse across the US reminds me of those international "NO" signs, the circle with a diagonal bar put in front of some other symbol, telling you not to do whatever that other symbol stands for. I imagine such a circle-bar overlaying the US as the path of totality runs from the Northwest to the Southeast across this country. It seems, somehow, appropriate for the times we are in that the Cosmos is telling us and the world "Do Not - US". Under Trump our country has become the number one pariah state in the world. It is such a contrast to the feelings about the US after WWII. Our country didn't just save the world from fascism and dictators, it turned around and pumped resources into the defeated enemies to help them recover. There was a real sense of nobility about the US.

Then, of course, we started playing god with the rest of the underdeveloped world. We, along with our allies, in the west, and the Russians in the east, started carving up the spoils, creating nations out of tribalistic states, and getting a lock on resources. We became social dictators and the world we live in today has been the result. Personally, I am sorry rest of the world. I'd like to think I would have done things very differently, but that experiment will never be run.

The darkening won't last long. I had the pleasure of seeing the total eclipse over Belgium in the late 1990s. It is a weird sort of darkness, accompanied by the silencing of birds and other beasts. The sky color reminded be of that under a tornado cell (which I saw several times during my stay in North Texas while studying computer science). A purple-greenish hue to my eyes. I'm anxious to see if that holds for this one.

The light will return. The bar painted across the continent will disappear as quick as it came. But the image of "Do Not - US" will continue to haunt.

July 28, 2017

A democracy works only if the electorate are 1) intelligent1, 2) knowledgeable2, and 3) informed3. None of these criteria are true of the United States of America today (or actually of any country). It should be no surprise that the governance of the country is in such a shambles. We have low intelligence, are ignorant of how reality works, and are poorly informed people both in terms of electing officials and those elected and running the country. For the most part we are motivated by personal greed, senses of entitlement, and inability to grasp the big picture of how we are suffering a diminishing capacity to do work and produce (what they think of as) wealth; a physical fact of reality. We are running on emotional charges. We believe that we are entitled to increasing material wealth and do not realize that the growth in material wealth was a fluke of the 1950s, 60s and early 70s due to a huge influx of free energy. That concept is totally beyond our capacity. All we know is that once we had it, now we don't. And we were promised, by unbelievably stupid politicians and economists, that we would have it into the future.

The implosion of the human social system is near at hand. It is beginning to look to me like the blow up of the Trump administration will likely be the trigger event, though only GOD knows how it will cascade. Which, of course, means no one can predict what is going to happen. Nevertheless, I predict that a major cataclysm is imminent.

I hope the eusapient individuals out there are ready for the challenge.

We have accumulated a lot of evidence that human beings are far from rational creatures. See: "The Enigma of Reason", https://www.amazon.com/Enigma-Reason-Hugo-Mercier/dp/0674368304/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1501286635&sr=1-1&keywords=the+reason+enigma

Most humans have an incredibly tiny understanding of how the world works. See: "The Knowledge Illusion: Why we never think alone", https://www.amazon.com/Knowledge-Illusion-Never-Think-Alone/dp/039918435X/ref=sr_1_sc_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1501286364&sr=1-1-spell&keywords=the+llusion+of+knowledge

July 17, 2017

I thought I would share some of the books I have been reading lately. All relate to the theme of watching the world fall apart.

The End of Normal, by James K. Galbraith (son of John Kenneth Galbraith), the Lloyd M. Bentsen Jr. Chair in Government/Business Relations at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, University of Texas at Austin. Simon & Schuster, New York (2014).

The question of why is the economy not growing the way it used to is very complicated. In truth the economy was not really growing all that strongly after the 1970s but we had come to expect that the right policies (by the Fed mostly) should lead to 3-4% growth in GDP y-o-y. Why did the Great Recession happen? Why has the recovery been so weak? Why can't the Fed seem to stimulate growth (as we would expect)? And what does debt have to do with all of this (both private and public)? He has some very worthwhile (that is systems-oriented) insights, it seems to me.

How Will Capitalism End? by Wolfgang Streeck, director of the Max Planck Institute for Social Research in Cologne, Professor of Sociology, University of Cologne. Verso, London (2016).

A compilation of mostly updated essays. Note he doesn't ask IF capitalism will end, but HOW. Of course he is talking about the modern version of capitalism, neoliberal, in which profits and growth are above all else. He does an excellent job of deconstructing the mechanisms that give rise to the instabilities inherent in this form, such as the income distribution problem leading to widening wealth gap. And then there is that pesky problem of debt again. He tackles the difficult subject of the inherent conflict between capitalism and democracy and how it leads to the death of the latter (think how money has taken over politics and politicians are now "brands").

This book made me do a lot of rethinking about the concept of 'geoengineering'. My initial thoughts about the subject, where things like proposals to seed the ocean with iron to stimulate algae growth to absorb CO2, or seed the stratosphere with sulfate aerosols, in order to combat global warming seemed to me like really desperate measures, especially since I thought no one knew enough about such ventures to understand how it would work (or if it would work). Grinspoon brought a lot of light into the room on this subject. He has actually convinced me that we may already have inadvertently re-engineered the Earth to a point that our only hope is to enter into the role of thoughtful (intentional) managers of the whole Ecos. He argues that there could be a way to change the world on purpose rather than as we have already done by accident. What I really liked about his thoughts is his recognizing that in order to do something like that is going to demand a lot more cooperation and coordination. Humans are going to have to become more sapient or suffer the consequences. Have an open mind about the topic and you may find yourself thinking about the subject less based on emotions and gut reactions after reading his thoughts.

The Knowledge Illusion: Why We Never Think Alone by Steven Sloman, Professor of Cognitive, Linguistic, and Psychology, Brown University, and Philip Fernbach, Professor of Marketing, Leeds School of Business, University of Colorado (a cognitive scientist). Riverhead Books, New York.

The subject of this book is actually why I found myself rethinking my position on geoengineering. The fact is that I did not know what I did not know and didn't know that there was much more to it than I did know. In other words I was really quite ignorant of some of the facts in the matter that do matter. My initial thoughts about the problem were based on very shallow understanding of what was being proposed and the rationale for it. I did not have the same initial reaction to GMOs, in part because I was a biologist with a pretty deep understanding of how DNA, genes, and protein production in cells works. Not that I would throw caution to the wind; there are still some unanswered questions about GMOs and research is needed. But the objections that most people make are based on what is called the Frankenstein fear rather than actually knowing what genes do and how they work.

The fact is that all of us are really very ignorant about most things and we rely on social networks and opinions of our communities to form our opinions about a great many things. Consider the biggest current example of a community forming a set of opinions about a 'leader' and how it is reinforced inside that community. We're all subject to group think - nothing new there. What is new in this book is the way in which all of us tend to think we are knowledgeable even when we are not. We don't know what we don't know and then tend to think we probably do!

I think the authors go a bit far in downgrading individual knowledge playing a significant role in life. They seem to want to place the greater role in the hive mind. They constantly remind us that the world is too complex and no one can know everything. I don't think that platitude is helpful. I have argued that there is a general template of knowledge - systems knowledge - that is at the base of all other specific system-kind knowledge. If one learns general systems thinking early, one is able to learn a great deal about many different knowledge areas. Since everything is a system and a subsystem, systems knowledge acts like the ultimate in reusability; simply substitute domain specific terms for system-general terms and use general systems semantics to grasp what the domain specific system is doing. You don't have to learn domain specific knowledge as if it is isolated from other domains. I suspect that many more people would be able to participate in more in-depth transdiciplinary work if they started out learning systems science.

That's it for now. I have a few more books on my summer reading list and will share if I find anything really interesting.

June 21, 2017

I'm at the 8th almost annual Biophysical Economics meeting, this year in Montana (Flathead Lake Bio Station). The subject of discussions continues to be the energy issues that are an ever growing threat to humanity. There is such an incredible disconnect between the scientific data being discussed here versus the stories told in the media regarding energy availability. The ordinary citizen thinks that because gasoline prices are relatively low (but they do seem to be creeping up) and they hear so much about fracked oil and gas, that we must be swimming in energy resources. Nothing could be further from the truth. And the reasons for low gas prices are counter intuitive so I doubt that the average consumer would be able to understand.

Many of us who have been following the twin problems of peak oil and falling energy return on energy availability were caught off guard by the sudden fall in oil prices. Of course they are still high by historical standards and since most of the new oil is coming from unconventional sources with costs higher than the market value of the oil, the oil and gas companies are losing money like crazy. The smaller ones are going bankrupt, the bigger ones are borrowing like crazy to stay in business and preserve their market shares. Things are really going crazy.

I have nothing to say about the political circus or the financial bubble(s) that are hanging over our collective head right now. I've said it all before. You know the story.

For me, I will just enjoy summer and keep working on my new book and hope something good eventually will come to pass.

April 01, 2017

AP, Dateline: Saturday, April 1. Seattle Washington

Computer Scientists Discover a New Realm of Information, An Alternate Reality

In a news release today from the University of Washington, the Institute of Technology located on the Tacoma, Wa. campus, announced the discovery of a previously unknown realm of reality, as described in the release, in which the laws of physics and psychology do not work exactly the same as they do in the realm we generally experience. Computer scientists at the Institute were working on a new method for creating virtual reality experiences when they discovered things going on in the computer that they had not programmed in. They immediately started analyzing the 'reality' to find out what was happening.

Almost immediately they ran across news articles from organizations that resembled real ones, like the New York Times (but named the New Wark Times). One particularly interesting article carried the story about how the FBI had determined that president Donald Drumpf's phones in Drumpf Towers were, indeed tapped by the prior administration.

Graduate student, Hugo Sewing, told the AP that he was assigned to go into this non-virtual, but different reality using the new interface that had been developed there at the UWT Institute. Once inside he discovered a world completely similar to the Matrix (of movie fame) where things in general seemed fairly normal but the news stories that had been deemed fake news in the real world (our world) were being reported as facts by the media in this alternate reality.

Lead researcher on the project, Professor Carry-Ann Lichen, explained that they found this alternate reality had been encountered through the new virtual reality equipment opening a portal into another dimension. She did not explain how. But a part of her description included a device that resembled a cell phone. Mr. Sewing, while inside this alternate 'matrix' had arranged to have news feeds from inside tweeted to our reality so that he and others on the research team could monitor the news going on there.

Some scientists are now speculating that some of those tweets may have gotten to a wider audience. In particular there is now speculation that somehow president Donald Trump's Twitter account became a recipient which might explain where he is getting his information. It would help explain why it seems like he exists in an alternate reality.

The research team at UWT did not comment on that possibility. However one member of the team, who asked not to be identified by name, suggested that president Trump's account might have already been tapped into the alternate reality where what we in this world call fake news is real news. More research will be needed to fully understand this phenomenon. Meanwhile the White House declined to comment on the story.

March 20, 2017

The elections are over. The new president is installed and has already brought chaos to the world, not just the US. History may not repeat itself exactly, but it does prove we humans have gotten into cycles of the same stupid mistakes and for all of history since the first civilizations of Mesopotamia, and, indeed, all other parts of the world where civilizations arose, humans have been repeating the same pattern of expansion, complexification, and resource depletion to the point of exhausting their source of wealth. And the rulers invariably respond to the unrest in the ways we are seeing today. Some, like Assad, who were already in power when the s**t hit the fan, respond with brutal crackdowns on rebelling populations. Others like Trump are put in power by promises to fix what is wrong with the status quo, but turn very quickly to trying (and most often succeeding) to subdue the potential unruly crowds by continuing promises to fix their lives, all the while undercutting their meager sources of income or wealth. Look at the repeal of Obamacare and replacement with a plan that is widely recognized as greatly inferior - except for the already rich.

The old saying goes, "the people get the government they deserve." And I think there is a great deal of truth to this. We have become a nation of profoundly ignorant people - ignorant, tending toward stupid, and incredibly selfish, narcissistic. When somebody pops up and promises to make the world the way it was when they were "happy", well this is what we get.

As the days get longer the pressure will be building toward an all out breakdown in civil society. As millions lose their healthcare, or unemployment (the real unemployment) rises when good jobs were supposed to be increasing, somebody is going to wise up and call bulls**t on the current government. I expect the same to happen when Brexit produces more hardships or when the far right parties in Europe gain control and proceed to screw up royally.

The problem is that even if some of, say for example, Trumps prescriptions were correct with respect to the intended, and promised outcomes, he would still fail because his predecessors (and at all levels of government and business) have left an unfixable system. The sheer complexity of the modern state, along with the sheer lack of consciousness and knowledge of the general governor, ensures massive failures as have happened so many times throughout history. Nothing fundamental has changed in this pattern since the days of old. Only now the collapse of civilization is global. And there is no sanctuary for those who seek to flee. Look at the plight of the Syrian refugees as they struggle to find places in countries that are on the brink of collapse themselves (hint: Greece).

Several thoughtful people I know who have been concerned about the future are now voicing a kind of despair for the future. The evidence for the build up to collapse is now so evident that anyone with half a brain and a bit of knowledge about the history of civilizations can see the end in sight.

On the other hand, and to leave you on a high note, the collapse of the current cultural system (neoliberal capitalism, profit maximization, revolving debt financing, the impacts on the education system, etc.) is a good thing. When I say unfixable, I mean just that. Some systems are fixable, or adjustable so that they work better in time. This one we live in is neither. It is so full of positive feedback loops that reinforce destructive behaviors that there is very little that can be done to break out without that very act destroying the interlocking processes and thus, itself bringing about collapse. What we need to do is see the bright side of this. For one, it will significantly slow down the human-caused forcing of the climate (other natural feedbacks aside this will be a very positive development.)

Once the rotten old system is debris it will be possible to reset human values (many of which are learned) and start fresh. We won't have the high tech gadgets to help us back to the kind of life many of us live now. But, so what. We will get a chance to start over, and hopefully do it better next time. At least that is my hope on this day of turning.

December 21, 2016

Opening on a Hopeful Note

I have been named Editor in Chief for the International Federation for Systems Research (Vienna Austria) book series, published by Springer, “Systems Science & Engineering”, previously managed by George Klir. I am deeply honoured to have been asked by the IFSR to head up the re-launch of their book series. My hope is to guide the series in the direction of opening up access to systems science and engineering to a much wider audience by making sure that the books published include sufficient prose, along with their mathematics, so that non-mathematically inclined people may also see the insights that systems science has to offer.

SS was developed as a subject during an era when scientists, especially in the various domains of physics, were overcome with pride and zealousness over their mastery of advanced mathematics. The early thinking was that mathematics was a completely adequate language for describing systems concepts. Many books and journal articles, thus, focused on mathematics at the expense of prose. The result was to put off a large audience of people who, nevertheless, intuitively grasped the ideas of systemness but were left without a lot of intellectual material from which to draw. The major exception was a group of people who bridged the worlds of verbal and mathematical description and realized that systems thinking would be valuable in management science but only if ideas could be expressed with a minimal amount of arcane mathematics. They called this track “Soft Systems Thinking.” To their credit they were fairly successful in expressing most of the principles of systemness in plain language using mathematics (usually nothing more complicated than basic algebra and set theory) only to add some amount of preciseness to their ideas.

Today there is a growing understanding that mathematics' proper role in describing the world is as just such an addendum. My work on human thinking, especially in the area of the internal language of thought (LoT) that I have proposed is actually the language of systemness - what I am calling “systemese,” and this language is comprised of four mental modules (actually five modules including the affect, emotional, influence on decision making as I reported in my Sapience book). The first module is the linguistic (verbalization) module responsible for encoding and using names of objects (nouns), relations (prepositions and many modifiers), and actions (verbs), plus the grammatical formation of sentences. This is the language facility most researchers and linguists focus on. However we also have names for quantity, measures (units), and calibrations (comparisons between two or more quantities, for example). These words can be conveniently represented by more terse symbols (signs) such as the numeral, '1' symbol representing the verbal symbol “one” and a built-in sense of counting. Measuring, involving comparison of sensory data from one object, for example, with another object, and calibration (e.g. making sure an arrow head was not too heavy for the arrow) led to various arithmetic capabilities. Math today is the result of an on-going evolution of abstraction of patterns of relations and using those abstractions, along with rules for deriving them, to multiple situations.

The third module in human thinking is strongly related to the mathematics module but was first evolved with the linguistic module and that is the logic module that is used to construct rational arguments. Early humans, as they were evolving language facility needed to use that language to confer on group decisions about future actions (e.g. when to go hunting next). These kinds of discussions required the discussants to put forth veridical arguments for their positions when there was a disagreement about conclusions. Facts and logic were needed to ferret out the proper course of action.

The fifth module concerns itself with visual interpretations. A picture is said to be worth a thousand words. And this has some basis in psychology. Our brains are evolved to use all four of these modules in order to have successful intra-specific communications take place. Successful here means that the results of communications increase the fitness of the species, by increasing the fitness of the tribe (and by doing so the fitness of individuals). The verbal facility acts as an integrating nexus between all of them. We have words and sentences to describe what we see, how we reason, and how big or small things are and how they compare to one another.

It takes all four of these competencies in order to describe the world (it takes the emotional module as well in order to communicate knowledge about individuals' states of feeling, e.g. desires, but so far as scientific descriptions are concerned we try hard to eliminate the effects of emotions). No one is sufficient by itself. It is somewhat possible to translate any of the three extra language facilities into verbal descriptions, but often at the risk of losing some precision or context. A well balanced use of all four is what makes the sciences so successful in producing increasingly veridical descriptions of the world and how it works. The reason mathematics has tended to dominate, especially at the lower levels of organization (e.g. physics), is that the various specializations in the sciences means that those who work in a particular field become deeply antiquated with the subject and the math used to model systems within that field. They can talk mathematics to one another and feel like they have done an adequate job of communicating with their tribe. However two factors are intervening in this comfort zone. The first is that systems science deals with systems in general, regardless of medium (physical, biological, social, etc.) The second is that the problems that the sciences are tackling are increasingly involving complex systems and require transdisciplinary approaches. Meaning that scientists must communicate with other tribes, often speaking different languages.

I will be developing my system language more thoroughly in the new book. My hope is that understanding better how our internal language of systemness works (with all modules) will provide us with a universal way to achieve transdisciplinarity and communications between all of the science disciplines. My object with the IFSR/Springer book series is to similarly guide the whole field toward a more balanced approach to communicating systems science to everyone.

And Now Some Not So Hopeful Observations

This year has demonstrated to us that nothing is permanent, not even democracy!

The evidence that the world as a whole is coming undone is abundant. The circuitous manner in which Trump arrives at the White House shows us that institutions meant to ensure the proper working of democratic governance have broken down, failed. Unless there is some revolution in the electoral college that denies Trump the presidency (and we will know shortly) the fact that a sufficient number of people in the US voted for him, sufficient to bring him close even if losing the popular vote, is, to me, adequate evidence to show how incredibly pathetic our education system has gotten. People (and not just Trump supporters) are generally abysmally ignorant. They are, I am starting to think, equally stupid. Even PhD-educated people are showing signs of a lack of any intellectual capacity, a dismal lack of any kind of understanding about matters outside their particular profession, and certainly no ability to exercise critical thinking skills. Even if the electoral college denies Trump the office, there is likely to be a revolution since his supporters are so emotionally broken that many of them have already shown violent tendencies.

The next few years are going to be especially difficult for the world and I think it is safe to say the rivets are already starting to burst from the boiler. From this point expect the chaos to simply increase and likely at an exponential rate. People, both republicans and democrats alike, voted for change. They wanted to eliminate the status quo and they will get their wishes. But given what I said above about the level of ignorance and stupidity that seems so prevalent in the population, even the so-called educated population, the kind of change they wanted isn't even feasible in the current state of the biophysical economy. So the changes they will get will be quite different from what they expect.

Democracy is a nice-sounding idea. As a form of governance it has appeal because it addresses a basic human desire to be autonomous, translated into the concepts of freedom and liberal human rights. It conveys some sense of equality and opportunity to participate in the decision processes of managing the economic, ethical, educational, and cultural subsystems of the human social system. Democratic governance has evolved over many generations to the kind we witness in the US and many western nations. Coupled with economic freedom, in the form of neoliberal capitalism, it has seemed to everyone that mankind had finally found the right formula for managing our affairs with equity and dignity. But...

A representative democracy is supposed to compensate for the little problem that most people have very limited memory and understanding capacity relative to the complexities of governing large social systems like a country. Even at the founding of the United States of America, the complexities of state and internal affairs were such that the Founding Fathers realized that the common person would be unable to know everything needed to participate fully in the governance process. Ergo, the representation in congress and the electoral college creation for the election of the executive. Even at that, the people being elected to represent the rest are tending of late to the stupid and ignorant side of the mental distribution. I think of someone like James Inhofe (R. OK.) and simply hang my head and cry. Of course stupid people are getting into elected office because the voters are even more stupid and ignorant and are even resentful of anyone who is clearly more knowledgeable and intellectual than they are. They vote with their emotions and a feeling that such people will understand their problems. It hasn't helped that the occasionally smart politician has used those smarts mostly for personal gain — influence, power, and riches. There seem to be as many selfish democrats as there are selfish republicans. And so the common person is left feeling like no one is really looking out for their interests.

A big part of the problem, however, is the difference between what they believe their interests are or should be, versus reality. Americans in particular have been sold on the concept of the “American Dream.” But so have so many other people around the world, pursuing material wealth in the belief that it brings happiness. It has simply never occurred to most people that wealth comes from converting natural resources into goods and services and that those come in limited supply. Thus, now that we have reached the limits imposed by reality, they simply cannot understand why they are denied the American dream. Worse yet in places like Syria and the whole MENA region, they cannot understand why they can't even try to attain something like the American dream. Not even their governments can tell them the truth. Mostly they themselves don't understand the situation. It has taken something like global warming to start physically changing the climate and weather patterns to finally get some leaders to recognize a little piece of the puzzle.

Democracy in any form suffers from this one fundamental flaw. It depends entirely on the mentality of the populace — the whole populace. It depends on people being sufficiently smart that they can use critical thinking and logical reasoning along with possessing adequate knowledge about how reality works to be able to make informed decisions. There are likely to always be differences of opinion because of emotional attachments to world views that vary from culture to culture and ideology to ideology. As long as there is a forum (the political process) for working out differences amenably, and an intent on all parties' parts to do so in a peaceful manner, then democratic process has a chance to work. But as you think about it, when has that description of people ever been true?

Closing on a Hopeful Note (somewhat)

I strongly believe that systems science can provide guidance toward creating a form of governance that would succeed in terms of providing for an acceptable level of welfare for the citizens. That welfare would be considerably less oriented toward physical wealth as we understand it today. But every citizen would have an opportunity to participate in meaningful work, helping to secure the social milieu against disturbing forces from outside, and being supported by the society in terms of assurance of physical needs and comfort.

Problem one is that this is only feasible for a significantly smaller population, one that is not depleting natural resources faster than the renewable ones can be renewed and the non-renewable ones can be recycled. The current population of 7+ billion people on the planet is not just non-sustainable, it alone (never mind continued growth) will kill the planet's ability to supply resources to humans and to most other members of the biosphere. How we get down to a sustainable population is the continuing problem being discussed in population overload circles. To date, no clear consensus has emerged, except that the likelihood of supporting 7-10 billion people is understood to be irrational. The most likely scenario for humanity in the near term is a planet-wide population crash and an evolutionary bottleneck event. This would be a self-correcting aspect of the population problem. But obviously a very brutal solution.

Problem number two is that even if we could get the population down to a supportable number, the physical environment, in particular the availability of more natural resources and the dramatic changes in climate, are going to provide significant hurdles to get over. Future human beings are going to face incredible obstacles in forming any kind of reasonable civilization, even at a tribal level. They will not have the resources, especially high power energy, to do the work needed to build and sustain civilized living conditions.

Problem number three involves preserving all or most of the hard-won knowledge about the world that science has accumulated to date. Not all of this knowledge would be immediately useful to future humans but it would serve as a reminder of the mistakes our current species have made (I imagine preserving the parable of the iPhone as a cautionary tale warning of overzealous technology advances). It might also serve as inspiration for eventually building a reasonable civilization. My own thoughts along these lines is that what will be needed is a way to encode knowledge into a preservable medium, but essentially compressing the expanded knowledge in all fields into a form (message) that could be transmitted through the ages and used to recover all of the detailed knowledge when it becomes possible (and I have to believe it will in some distant future time). I believe that knowledge of systems science is exactly that compressed form of knowledge for everything. If systemness is the fundamental organizing principle of the Universe, then it should be possible to rebuild the specific sciences by applying systems thinking to the phenomena that future humans will certainly witness.

Problem number four, then, is simply providing strategies, tactics, and logistics to people who grasp reality well enough to follow through so they can survive in the future drastically different world they will occupy.

Over the years that I have been writing this blog I have tried, in some small way, to provide some pointers in the directions of, first, understanding these problems, and second, offering some suggested ways to address them. Of course, over that time my own thinking has been evolving and continues to do so today. My involvement with the book series project mentioned above is part of my work on hopefully solving problem number three. I am counting on a wider dissemination of systems science knowledge and thinking to help ensure some preservation. Even if no more than by word of mouth as a kind of oral tradition.

Over the last few months I have turned my attention to ideas about systems based governance of human social systems. Owing to the capricious nature of human emotions, human agents make lousy decision makers on their own recognizance. So the question of designing an architecture that can overcome the weakness of human beings acting as decision agents has begun occupying more of my time. I will be outlining my findings in the new book but also plan to write about them here as they evolve. The good news (of sorts) is that after studying natural governance in living systems I think I can see where our evolved ideas about governance took a wrong turn (as with the evolution of deepening sapience the turning point appears to be around the advent of agriculture!) Moreover, I think I can see how we can learn from natural governance and apply those ideas to create a better form of human governance that will meet the criteria of welfare for all citizens. I can promise it will be nothing like we have now nor particularly like we had back in the tribal days more than 10,000 years ago, though it will incorporate the human meaning that was the basis of tribal cultures. It will describe a system that is in balance with the whole Ecos owing to internal regulation that keep it from growing beyond realistic boundaries or using resources unrealistically fast.

I realize it is too late for our current populations to adopt such a governance system. They can't even understand it or why it is needed. But I hope that as part of the knowledgebase of systems science the ideas will be available to some future society for adoption.